- Sep 2, 2005
In October 2002, Reps. Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the FEC challenging 19 regulations adopted by the FEC to implement Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). In September 2004, the District Court struck down 15 of the 19 contested regulations and ordered the FEC to rewrite the rules. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court decision.
- Nov 14, 2005
In February 2005, ballot measure committee Citizens to Save California challenged a California Fair Political Practices Commission regulation establishing a presumption that all contributions to a candidate-controlled ballot measure committee are contributions to a candidate for elective state office subject to candidate contribution limits. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s holding that the regulation conflicted with multiple provisions of the state’s Political Reform Act and thereby exceeded the FPPC’s authority; the court deemed it unnecessary to rule on the constitutional claims in the case...
- Jun 13, 2008
In July 2006, Representatives Shays and Meehan challenged regulations promulgated by the FEC in response to an earlier case litigated by the Congressmen (Shays I). In June 2008, the Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision invalidating almost all sections challenged by plaintiffs in the FEC’s regulations on coordination and “federal election activity.”...
- Feb 4, 2011
It is argued that the Court should reverse the District Court's judgement based on: (1) Just as the taxpayers had Article III injury to challenge the legality of the line-item-veto procedure that retained a substantively lawful tax liability, candidate Nix has Article III injury to challenge the legality of the Section 5 procedure that is retaining substantively lawful electoral burdens; (2) Just as the President’s unconstitutional cancellation of the Medicaid funding law did not “nullify” that law, the unconstitutional Section 5 cannot “nullify” Kinston’s referendum; and (3) Just as the taxpayers brought a facial challenge to the line-item veto even though the President’s cancellation discretion was non-reviewable, Plaintiffs can bring a facial challenge to Section 5 even though the Attorney General’s preclearance discretion is non-reviewable.
- Mar 7, 2011
Intervenors-Appellees respectfully request that the Court affirm the judgment of the District Court.
- Apr 21, 2011
On April 21, 2011, Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) sued the FEC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that a 2007 regulation improperly narrowed the scope of federal disclosure requirements connected to electioneering communications...
Van Hollen v. FEC: Plaintiff-Appellee Van Hollen’s Opposition to Intervenors’ “Emergency Motions” for StayApr 30, 2012
Plaintiff-Appellee Chris Van Hollen submits this opposition to “emergency motions” for stay filed by intervenor-appellants Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) and Hispanic Leadership Fund (“HLF”).
Van Hollen v. FEC: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denying a request to stay the District Court rulingMay 14, 2012
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denying a request to stay the District Court ruling.
- May 18, 2012
Opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals before Judges Tatel and Griffith and Senior Circuit Judge Williams. Judge Tatel filed the opinion with Judge Williams filing a dissenting opinion.
- Jul 20, 2012
Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee Chris Van Hollen. Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), Chris Van Hollen submits this Certificate as to Parties, Rulings, and Related Cases.
- Jan 16, 2013
Answers question of whether 2 U.S.C. § 441c, as applied to individuals such as plaintiffs, but not to others similarly situated, violate the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Also, whether 2 U.S.C. § 441c, as applied to individuals such as plaintiffs, violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.
- Feb 20, 2013
Answers whether the district court correctly held that the ban on federal campaign contributions by all federal contractors in 2 U.S.C. § 441c satisfies the First Amendment as applied to contractors who are individuals. Also, whether the district court correctly held that 2 U.S.C. § 441c as applied to individual federal contractors satisfies the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
Wagner v. FEC: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Amici Brief of CLC et al. in Support of the FECAug 9, 2013
Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 & Public Citizen Amici Brief in support of Defendant, FEC. Amici urge the court to find in favor of the FEC on all certified questions raised in this en banc proceeding.
NY Republican State Committee v. SEC: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Amici Brief of CLC & Democracy 21 Supporting SEC and Urging AffirmanceJan 28, 2015
In this brief, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 claim that despite the broad acceptance of the proposition that governmental contracting should be insulated from pay-to-play activities, petitioners New York Republican State Committee and Tennessee Republican Party challenge the Rule as both beyond the SEC’s statutory authority and contrary to the First Amendment. Neither claim has merit, and their challenge should be rejected.
- Jul 19, 2017
CLC filed an amicus brief with Demos in support of CREW, who brought the case.